Friday 9 February 2018

Stretched Beyond Their Capacity

It's Friday - time for another report from Dame Glenys Stacey on how the privatised CRCs are doing on another aspect of their work. Here is the press release that accompanies todays release of a report on the thematic inspection of Enforcement and Recall:- 

Overstretched private probation companies struggling with poor enforcement of community sentences, inspectors find

The enforcement by private probation companies of community-based court sentences has been assessed as poor in a report by HM Inspectorate of Probation. Inspectors found that staff in Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) did not see offenders often enough while under supervision on two of the most commonly used non-custodial sentences – community orders and suspended sentence orders.

This lack of meaningful engagement led to poor decisions in managing breaches of the orders. Though the proportion of community-sentences completed or ended early through good progress has been gradually rising, it was still the case that in 2016-17 a total of almost 30,000 court orders were terminated through failure to comply, further offences or other reasons.

Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation, has previously raised concerns about remote and infrequent supervision of offenders by CRC staff, sometimes only by phone, which risks breaking the face-to-face relationships which are vital to successful probation work.

In the new report – Enforcement and Recall – Dame Glenys said: “Once again, we found CRCs stretched beyond their capacity.

“Good enforcement relies on good quality probation supervision. CRCs focused on contract compliance, but not seeing people often enough, or not engaging meaningfully with them, are inevitably behind the curve on enforcement, as staff may not know when enforcement is called for, or when purposeful work to re-engage the individual would be better for them and for society.” Poor supervision, Dame Glenys added, “is more likely to lead to reoffending and, for some, another round of imprisonment.”

Inspectors also looked at cases where individuals were recalled to prison because of breaches of the conditions of their release into the community under license. It addressed concerns expressed by some commentators that offenders were recalled too readily, for minor breaches. The report showed that a substantial number of people were recalled – with this group accounting for 6,554 out of the prison population of 85,513 in England and Wales on 31 March last year.

However, Dame Glenys said she hoped the report would allay concerns about inappropriate recall. “There have been increases in recall numbers, most recently following the extension of supervision in the community to those sentenced to less than 12 months.”

The inspection found almost all recall decisions by the NPS, the National Probation Service responsible for higher risk offenders, and CRCs were good decisions.

“Often, the level of disengagement or deterioration in the person’s behaviour were such that they could not be safely managed in the community. Recall was appropriate, even when the individual had committed a relatively minor further offence.” The reason for this in CRC cases, inspectors believe, was that recall procedures were generally clear and well understood, and people on licence, and subject to recall, were more likely to be supervised by higher-grade staff who are experienced at making the necessary judgements.


--oo00oo--

Foreword

We reported initial teething problems in enforcement soon after Transforming Rehabilitation, with cases moving to and fro between the National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) unnecessarily. Local leaders and staff worked hard to iron out those early difficulties. It is a credit to them that arrangements for CRCs to transfer cases to the NPS for enforcement (as they must) now work as well as they do, time after time. 

At the start of my tenure, magistrates and others were expressing concerns about an apparent reluctance of CRCs to enforce. We alerted the Ministry of Justice last year to our evidence that enforcement was not always happening when it should. CRCs were paid less if too many cases were cut short by enforcement, an incentive not to act. The department acted quickly to redress matters, but understandably, magistrates and others still lack confidence, not sure of effective enforcement. 

I hope that more recent concerns at the other end of the spectrum – that individuals released from prison on licence are being recalled to prison too readily by probation staff – are abated by our inspection findings. There have been increases in recall numbers, most recently following the extension of supervision in the community to those sentenced to less than 12 months. In this inspection, we found almost all NPS and CRC recall decisions were good decisions, with the NPS particularly good at considering alternatives to recall beforehand. 

Often, the level of disengagement or deterioration in the person’s behaviour were such that they could not be safely managed in the community. Recall was appropriate, even when the individual had committed a relatively minor further offence. There is still every reason to be anxious about CRC enforcement, however. We found that NPS cases were sufficiently wellmanaged, whereas too many CRC cases were not. While it seems odd that we found CRCs notably better at recall than enforcement, we think we know why that is. 

Recall procedures are generally clear and well understood, and people on licence are more likely to be supervised by higher-grade staff who are experienced at making the necessary judgements. 

What is more, good enforcement relies on good quality probation supervision. CRCs focused on contract compliance, but not seeing people often enough, or not engaging meaningfully with them, are inevitably behind the curve on enforcement, as staff may not know when enforcement is called for, or when purposeful work to re-engage the individual would be better for them and for society. I suspect this is the biggest issue undermining effective enforcement today: that, in many CRCs, the case management itself is insufficient to enable good enforcement decisions. Instead, poor supervision is more likely to lead to reoffending and, for some, another round of imprisonment. 

Once again, we found CRCs stretched beyond their capacity. We hope that the recommendations in this report provide an impetus for change, so that enforcement decisions can be made fairly and appropriately, as part of good, integrated probation practice designed to tackle entrenched reoffending patterns.

Dame Glenys Stacey
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
January 2018

4.3. Conclusions and implications 

Community Rehabilitation Companies 

Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decisionmaking in the sample of post-sentence supervision cases was poor. We found that several things had a bearing on this: workload pressures, the complexity of the cases, organisational upheaval and the limited opportunities to engage with service users who were reluctant to be supervised. It is far from the case that nothing can be done. It had been possible to access useful services as part of supervision in cases in the wider sample, particularly if there were well-developed partnership arrangements in the locality. However, the current arrangements far too often fail to make an impact on these difficult cases. 

National Probation Service 

Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decisionmaking in the sample of post-sentence supervision cases was good in the NPS. The complexity of cases being managed was remarkably high, and the proportion of individuals assessed as a high risk of causing serious harm striking. Despite good probation work, most individuals in the sample remained locked in a cycle of brief periods in the community and frequent return to prison. 

Shared conclusion 

There were marked limitations to what could be achieved for these individuals and wider society. Far from turning around people’s lives, the additional elements of supervision seemed to make no tangible difference. High-quality case management by itself did not deliver effective outcomes in most cases. Where positive progress happened, this was attributable either to the persistent efforts of individual practitioners or to the existence of multi-agency approaches aligned to the localities in which the service was delivered – the key partner agencies of police, local authority and health service providers. In some areas such working arrangements were in place. In others they were non-existent. Again, we found no clear pathway for female service users.

15 comments:

  1. "in many CRCs, the case management itself is insufficient to enable good enforcement decisions. Instead, poor supervision is more likely to lead to reoffending and, for some, another round of imprisonment."

    This can only be read as "people are going to prison because of crap supervision by CRCs"? A powerful statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Out of pure interest, what is a typical PO caseload in the NPS?

      Delete
    2. an enormous amount of typing, rehashing the information gleaned from hurried contact with clients, into different data-bases, assessments and forms.

      Delete
  2. " People on licence are more likely to be supervised by higher grade staff " - Really !!! Not in my experience , it really doesn't work like that unless there is child protection those licence cases would sit with any member of staff regardless of experience - recalls have to be endorsed by a line manager and the manager above them. However all of that said you have to know when to go to a manager to discuss a potential recall and as most of us know some case managers are being left inexperienced to handle high case loads

    ReplyDelete
  3. I feel for the inspectors. They have to walk a fine line between telling it as it is, appeasing the tabloids and ministers. trouble is this leads to the situation being drastically watered down. Probation simply isn't fit for purpose at present which is doing everyone - supervisee, PO and the public a huge disservice.

    Everyone I know who has been on licence or is still on licence has had multiple probation officers over the course of their sentence and licence. There is no way anyone can build a good working relationship with a service user if they are here today and someone else is there tomorrow. Consistency and trust are key.

    Supervising people by telephone, unless you're 100% sure that they aren't going to slip back into bad habits or as is clearly widespread as has been revealed recently - innocent of what they were imprisoned for so are extremely unlikely to commit a crime, is asking for trouble.

    At the very least the PO/supervisee relationship needs to be built on trust that both sides are going to behave themselves and abide by the law (and yes there are an awful lot of PO's playing fast and loose with their legal obligations under the law or who simply don't understand their legal obligations and can't be bothered to educate themselves on them. You can't seriously expect a supervisee to abide by the law if you're setting a bad example by not adhering to the law).

    Instead of a sticking plaster which is probably what will happen, if anything, this is an excellent opportunity to redesign the service from the ground up to make it fit for purpose now and in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is that you last sentence was the rhetoric that surrounded TR. Look where that got us. For me, the problems are simple. An overemphasis on punishment not rehabilitation. An over reliance on IT and recording. Excessive caseloads and few opportunities to build relationships with offenders and to offer the practical and emotional assistance required. The value of Probation is and always has been the relationship between the practitioner and the offender. Until that relationship is put at the centre of the operating model, it will be all hot air.

      Delete
  4. Privatising probation was only one part of Graylings Rehabilitation Revolution.
    He said it would work because it came in conjunction with engagement with the third sector, resettlement prisons, and TTG. None of that has happened, and without the whole package there is no Rehabilitation Revolution, and CRCs remain as the only part of a botched and broken ideologically driven system.

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
  5. well well what a surprise, pretty meaningless of course.
    I see this as tokenist fodder to make it look like there is some sort of monitoring going on.
    When you and I know its not the case. The only outcome will be to waste more money on even more poor service.
    How the hell can you have a proper insight if you are not talking to the very people who use the service. Yeah lets ignore them that's a good idea.
    The very people who know whats going on.
    If you come from the standpoint that everyone who has committed an offence must be totally untrustworthy and not to be believed at all under any circumstances then you will learn sweet FA.
    Finding excuses to breach someone or winding them up until they break is NOT proper enforcement. 'Dame' Stacey needs to talk to the service users to find out what the real issues are, one of which is very poor low quality POs in CRCs. They can cause quite alot of damage with their mishandling and more contact with them only serves to allow them to cause even more. They are especially a waste of time (and space).
    Add into that very poor courses with very poor presenters where people are lumped in to make a larger invoice spells tick boxing roller-coaster.
    Yep just keep on ignoring the service users, that's the solution!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/probation-privatisation-failure-transforming-rehabilitation-enforcement-poor-crcs-monitoring-nps-a8201536.html

      Delete
  6. Why are the CRCs 'overstretched'? This judgment lets them off the hook. I don't recall thematics on probation pre-TR ever highlighting lack of resources – even during the austerity years - as being a fundamental issue – yet the first recommendation in the report tells the government to ensure that probation is sufficiently resourced. Did the CRCs overstretched themselves in cutting staff numbers and dispensing with many experienced practitioners? Are they overstretched because their operating models are not fit for purpose? 'Poor performance' is becoming synonymous with CRC operations. Two of the recommendations tell the NPS and CRCs to 'jointly develop' partnerships and services - this points to the necessity of integration. As any child will tell you, you cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together. A public-private partnership will never work in probation. As it seems doubtful that any government would ever trust the private sector to run the NPS, the only way out of this mess is to return the CRCs to public ownership. It's been tried before and whilst not always perfect, probation was one of the best performing public services that enjoyed the trust and confidence of the judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I don't want to pay for a service, I want to pay for results." When asked about the evidence base for the TR revolution preferred to rely on "Common sense." Stated that the Private sector was best placed to shape the necessary changes to bring about the revolution. Claimed he had achieved what various Justice Ministers had been trying to achieve over the last 30 years, namely support for people on release from short term custodial sentences. Claimed the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors would revitalise through innovation, creativity and efficient use of taxpayers money the hitherto unacceptable and stale performance on rates of reoffending. The only box I am ticking, several years later, is that a revolution has been enacted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Both CRCs and NPS are overstretched, dysfunctional and creaking at the seams. The parts do not make up the sum of the whole.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hypocrisy by the HM Inspectorate of Probation. It employs Tessa Webb, former CEO of BeNCH CRC, as a lead inspector. And how many others are on its payroll that played a role in privatising Probation? The HMIP pretends to speak out when really it is positioning for consultancy status and revenue on delivering Probation / YOT policy and practice. It’s lacking in ethnic minority members too, but no surprise there as most of “Justice” is the same.

    ReplyDelete
  10. HMIP sits on the fence and fails to point the finger at the government for its ongoing meddling in probation which has caused the current mess. Man down the pub thinks the HMIP is positioning to shift to widen its reach to include (paid) consultant and (paid) speaker on probation and YOT policy and practice.

    ReplyDelete
  11. “people on licence, and subject to recall, were more likely to be supervised by higher-grade staff who are experienced at making the necessary judgements.”

    Actually no because the CRC’s are full of temps and the NPS is propping itself up with trainees and pso’s.

    ReplyDelete